Chetnaben J Shah vs. ITO (Gujarat High Court)

It is a normal presumption that statement under section 132(4) is given voluntarily unless it is proved otherwise. There is no evidence on record to show that this statement was given in any coercion. But this statement was subject to variation on either side after verification i.e. assessee could reduce the disclosure made or the Assessing Officer could enhance the same if the facts and evidence so warranted. May be, even if this fact is not mentioned in the statement itself, the point will still remain since it is no body’s case to get say any extra tax then is due. The reality remains that there is no evidence what-so-ever with the department even in consequence of a serious action like search and seizure followed by detailed security which could support the earning of speculation income of Rs.10,50,000/- in this year. In other words, there is no evidence to support the very existence of this income except the so called statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. It defies logic that an assessee will or should admit any income which he had not earned and which the department had not found out. I do not find any thing against the arguments that disclosure u/s. 132(4) was subject to variation and once the assessee had access to seized documents and he realised subsequently that there was no occasion to make this disclosure, he was having an inherent right to clarify the situation so that he could be taxed only on real income and not on an income which was not there at all, since there was no evidence to prove otherwise too. In addition, the very important fact that remains that inspite of the search, no material/evidence was found to show that the assessee was having any other undisclosed assets which could be linked with this disclosure.